San Mateo County Sheriff Critical Of Supreme Court Ruling On Prison Overcrowding

SAN MATEO (KCBS / AP) – A U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday narrowly endorsing a plan to move 33,000 inmates out of California’s cramped prison system will make overcrowding an issue at county jails, said San Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks.

The 5-4 decision that the reduction is “required by the Constitution” to correct longstanding violations of inmates’ rights affirms that federal judges retain enormous power to oversee troubled state prisons.

KCBS’ Mike Colgan Reports:

Munks said transferring or releasing so many inmates will create a strain on San Mateo County jails already at 120 percent capacity.

“Those inmates, rather than going to state prison, will start doing their time in the county jail system,” he said, adding another 400 to 500 inmates to a jail system that already houses 1,000 inmates.

The Supreme Court order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system’s designed capacity, said Santa Clara University law professor David Ball.

“By upholding this order, they’re not saying that the state has to have uncrowded prisons, just not incredibly overcrowded prisons,” Ball said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native, wrote the majority opinion, in which he included photos of severe overcrowding. The court’s four Democratic appointees joined with Kennedy.

“The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected,” Kennedy said. The lawsuit challenging the provision of mental health care was filed in 1990.

Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissent that the court order is “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.”

Scalia, reading his dissent aloud Monday, said it would require the release of “the staggering number of 46,000 convicted felons.”

Scalia’s number, cited in legal filings, comes from a period in which the prison population was even higher.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia’s opinion, while Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate dissent for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Michael Bien, one of the lawyers representing inmates in the case, said, “The Supreme Court upheld an extraordinary remedy because conditions were so terrible.”

State officials did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Eighteen other states joined California in urging the justices to reject the population order as overreaching. They argued that it poses a threat to public safety. State attorneys general said they could face similar legal challenges.

Alito said he, too, feared that the decision, “like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years, we will see.”

The California dispute is the first high court case that reviewed a prisoner release order under a 1996 federal law that made it much harder for inmates to challenge prison conditions.

The case revolves around inadequate mental and physical health care in a state prison system that in 2009 averaged nearly a death a week that might have been prevented or delayed with better medical care.

The facilities were designed to hold about 80,000 inmates.

The state has protested a court order to cut the population to around 110,000 inmates within two years, but also has taken steps to meet, if not exceed, that target. Kennedy said the state also could ask the lower court for more time to reach the 110,000-inmate target.

A person appointed by federal judges now oversees prison medical operations, but the judges have said the key to improving health care is to reduce the number of inmates.

At the peak of the overcrowding, nearly 20,000 inmates were living in makeshift housing in gymnasiums and other common areas, often sleeping in bunks stacked three high. Another 10,000 inmates were in firefighting camps or private lockups within California.

In 2006, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger used his emergency powers to begin shipping inmates to private prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma. More than 10,000 California inmates are now housed in private prisons out of state.

Schwarzenegger also sought to reduce the inmate population by signing legislation that increased early release credits and made it more difficult to send ex-convicts back to prison for parole violations. Another law rewards county probation departments for keeping criminals out of state prisons.

One result of those changes is that the state has been able to do away with nearly two-thirds of its makeshift beds, although more than 7,000 inmates remain in temporary housing.

The case is Brown v. Plata ((09-1233).

(Copyright 2011 by CBS San Francisco. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services may have contributed to this report.)

One Comment

Clinton and Obama Supreme Court appointees hard at work. Many decent people go without ANY health care but here we have to provide free and adequate care for criminals, many of whom are in this country illegally? How about deporting them back to Mexico! They complain about America? Let their beloved country handle them.

That is a lie ex-convicts are sent back to prison everyday on parole violations by lying parole agents if there are 3 new commitments you can know there are 30 parole violations returning back to prison everyhour!They do not keep them in county jail wake up america

Anyone asked the cops on the beat and We the People how we feel about releasing almost 50 thousand violent criminals into general population? These people will re-offend and will be back in jail within a week. The only difference will be another victim!

Perhaps the justices who ruled in favor of this would like to have some of these hardened criminals come live with them. As the dissenting opinion stated this is the equivalent of 3 infantry divisions worth of criminals. Let the raping and pillaging begin!!!

The State will try to buy bed space from our county jails… Oh wait, our county jails are at capacity too! So, our state prisons had at one time, infirmaries with doctors and nurses. Then inmates (who never cared about themselves on the outside) complained that their medical treament wasn’t as good as treatment that law abiding folks get. So what does the state do? They go into receivership and hire High Priced Dr. Kelso (sp) from UOP, who shuts down the onsite care and starts sending inmates to ER’s all around the state, costing millions!!!! When an inmate goes to ER, it’s in an ambulance with a corrections officer plus an escort follows and (two to three officers) to guard the inmate during treatment (more bucks and OT). Let’s see… full dental and lets not forget the sex hormones/treatment for those confused inmates. Had Dr. Kelso gotten his way, we would have had a new facility mid state, which would have had “Aroma Therapy” rooms and “Massages” for sex offenders and murderers to help calm them before release. Thank God it was stopped but only by the tanked state budget!!! I say, let’s set up tent prisons like Sheriff Joe has. If it’s good enough for our troops, it’s more than good enough for inmates. Did you know that inmates in Calif. can’t be served MRE’s like our military eats? Yep, not good enough for the worst criminals. The Supreme Court is now a joke and has become a very dangerous arm. I could go on for days about the CDC. One thing though, the men and women of CDC, you do great work and I have total respect for what you do. I just don’t know how you do it!!! Be safe!!!!

What a bunch of stupid people the prison are over crowed because of the lying police officers,DA’s and public pretenders there are so many people in there on lies.They have staff infection,black mould,and water in the prison is not drinkable low leavel of strick 9 in D.V.I in tracy california I know I was there on lie’s and would not let me withdraw my plea.Just The Truth